It may also be that Glock failed to rase the defense and thereby waived it.
To me this is an issue of causation. Was the design of the Glock the cause of the incident or was the failure to keep a gun away from a 3 year old the cause?
A reasonably prudent person would take steps to prevent a 3 year old from having access to a gun. Holding a manufacturer liable for the unreasonable acts of the claimant just strikes me as unjust. By allowing the suit to proceed the court has said basically "it's ok to leave a gun where a 3 year old can access it".
One purpose of tort law is to make a person whole from damage caused by the negligent or intentional acts of another. We don't generally allow someone to recover damages from another where the damage was caused by the claimants negligence.
If what I just googled is correct California is a pure comparative negligence state. It would be interesting to see how a jury would apportion fault in this case. Any California injury lawyers care to chime in?
Does anyone know what the rule on negligence per se is in California? It seems to me that since the father might have violated the statute on preventing child access to firearms this would be clear cut negligence on his part.